lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Nov]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC/RFB] x86_64, i386: interrupt dispatch changes
Date

On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 07:39:22 -0800, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
said:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >
> > hackbench is _way_ too noisy to measure such cycle-level differences
> > as irq entry changes cause. It also does not really stress interrupts
> > - it only stresses networking, the VFS and the scheduler.
> >
> > a better test might have been to generate a ton of interrupts, but
> > even then it's _very_ hard to measure it properly. The best method is
> > what i've suggested to you early on: run a loop in user-space and
> > observe irq costs via RDTSC, as they happen. Then build a histogram
> > and compare the before/after histogram. Compare best-case results as
> > well (the first slot of the histogram), as those are statistically
> > much more significant than a noisy average.
> >
>
> For what it's worth, I tested this out, and I'm pretty sure you need to
> run a uniprocessor configuration (or system) for it to make sense --
> otherwise you end up missing too many of the interrupts. I first tested
> this on an 8-processor system and, well, came up with nothing.
>
> I'm going to try this later on a uniprocessor, unless Alexander beats me
> to it.

I did the rdtsctest again for the irqstubs patch you sent. The data
is at http://heukelum.fastmail.fm/irqstubs/ and the latency histogram
is http://heukelum.fastmail.fm/irqstubs/latency_hpa.png

Greetings,
Alexander

> -hpa
--
Alexander van Heukelum
heukelum@fastmail.fm

--
http://www.fastmail.fm - Same, same, but different...



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-11-10 22:47    [W:0.467 / U:0.380 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site